Appeal No. 2000-0660
Application No. 08/985,278
The Examiner further argues that
Hayabuchi does not explicitly teach that the thickness
of the top oxide being set so that an amount of
transition of the carriers passing through the top
oxide layer is almost equal to or larger than the
amount of transition of the carriers passing through
the tunnel film in a read operation. However, in
Hayabuchi's device the thickness of the top oxide layer
being smaller than the thickness of the tunnel film . .
. Hayabuchi's device inherently has the characteristics
as claimed.
See page 4, lines 6-9, 13 and 14 of the answer.
"Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency,
each and every element of a claimed invention." RCA Corp. V.
Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir.), cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984),
citing Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218
USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The prior art disclosure need
not be expressed in order to anticipate. Standard Havens Prods.,
Inc. V. Gencor Indus., Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369, 21 USPQ2d 1321,
1328 (Fed. Cir.) cert. denied, 506 U.S. 817 (1992).
Furthermore, "[t]o establish inherency, the extrinsic
evidence 'must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is
necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and
that it would be so recognized by person of ordinary skill.'" In
99
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007